From 14499f81857fe63700d17964e3e9d9bbdbed7118 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rich Trott Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 21:18:44 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] doc: improve PR-review paragraph in CONTRIBUTING.md * Remove redundant "blocking it or stopping it" as blocking and stopping are the same thing in this case. * Make another sentence less wordy. Fix incorrect verb conjugation. Break into two clear sentences. PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/17931 Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca Reviewed-By: Jon Moss Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung Reviewed-By: James M Snell Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil --- CONTRIBUTING.md | 11 +++++------ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.md b/CONTRIBUTING.md index 1dbaadf6854044..b1cc67ada553ff 100644 --- a/CONTRIBUTING.md +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.md @@ -602,12 +602,11 @@ your name on it. Congratulations and thanks for your contribution! All Node.js contributors who choose to review and provide feedback on Pull Requests have a responsibility to both the project and the individual making the contribution. Reviews and feedback must be helpful, insightful, and geared -towards improving the contribution as opposed to simply blocking it or -stopping it. If there are reasons why you feel the PR should not land, explain -what those are. Do not expect to be able to block a Pull Request from advancing -simply because you say "No" without giving an explanation. It is also important -to be open to having your mind changed, and to being open to working with the -contributor to make the Pull Request better. +towards improving the contribution as opposed to simply blocking it. If there +are reasons why you feel the PR should not land, explain what those are. Do not +expect to be able to block a Pull Request from advancing simply because you say +"No" without giving an explanation. Be open to having your mind changed. Be open +to working with the contributor to make the Pull Request better. Reviews that are dismissive or disrespectful of the contributor or any other reviewers are strictly counter to the [Code of Conduct][].